[colinmhayes]

I don't think people would use a music streaming service that doesn't have all the content they want. I think the record companies agreed to the streaming deal because they saw that piracy was a legitimate issue, and the business strategy probably just worked better than for film. $5 or $10 a month per user adds up to an acceptable amount of revenue for music labels + streaming services to split, but there's just more money in film so the price for a universal streamer would be bonkers and no one would pay.

The content probably works better for film streamers too. If you have to change apps every time you finish a 3 minute song to listen to the next one you probably would look for a different solution, but film is a much longer commitment so switching services after watching is less of a hassle.

[parpfish]

I think this the main reason -- it really just comes down to the number of unique pieces of content a user will stream in a session.

For video a session is generally one movie or a bunch of episodes of the same TV show, so you can sit in one service for a long time.

But for music, you'd either spend lot of time hopping between services OR you are forced into making compromises (e.g., do you listen to the classic rock radio station on the service that has rights to rolling stones, or the app that has rights to led zeppelin)?